Download Tolman Versus Hull

13/11/2014
Relative Influence
• Hull
– Much more influential
– Constructed postulates and derived theorems
– Built discipleship at Yale’s IHR
– In line with naturalistic-positivistic zeitgeist of
American psychology after WWI
• Tolman
– Cryptophenomenologist
– Never a systematic theorist
– No disciples
– Mysticism about purpose and cognition
We’re All Behaviorists Now
• Kenneth Spence (1907-1967)
– Collaborated on Hull’s work, continued his
theorizing
– Observed that behaviorism took many
forms (1948)
– Tried to create common beliefs that all
behaviorists could agree on
1
13/11/2014
We’re All Behaviorists Now
• Skinner
– Influenced by Watson
– Work out behaviorism with new set of
technical concepts (1931)
– Behavior of Organism (1938)
After the Golden Age
• Experimental psychology after WWII
– The study of learning
• Sigmund Koch
– psychology “entered an era of total
disorientation”(1951)
– Internal cause: stagnation
– External cause: social usefulness
2
13/11/2014
After the Golden Age
• Karl Lashley (1951)
– Attacked S-R chaining theory of complex
behaviors (language)
– Central planning functions which coordinate
actions as units
• Frank Beach (1950)
– Questioned the generalizability of lab
findings
– General science of behavior or learning in
the Norway rat
Formal Behaviorism in Peril
• Generation of experimental psychologists
after WWII
– Professionally raised on logical positivism
and operationism
– Apply criteria to theories of Tolman and Hull
• Dartmouth Conference on Learning Theory
(1950)
– Hull’s theory was most strongly criticized
– Followed by Tolman and Skinner
3
13/11/2014
Radical Behaviourism – B.F. Skinner (1904
– 1990)
• Best known and most influential behaviourist
• Rejected previous tradition that tried to explain internal
processes
• Based on Darwinian evolutionary theory
– Followed Watson: environment responsible for
behaviour
– Looked outside humans for causes of behaviour
– People should not be praised or blamed for anything
they do
• Good/evil, if they exist, lie in environment, not the
person
B.F. Skinner
4
13/11/2014
Radical Behaviourism – B.F. Skinner (1904
– 1990)
Defined three aspects of radical behaviourism:
1 Philosophy
2 The Experimental Analysis of Behaviour
3 Interpretation of Human Behaviour
Radical Behaviourism as a Philosophy
Critique of Freud’s theory:
– Freud’s great discovery: human behaviour
has unconscious causes
– Great mistake: invention of a mental
apparatus (id, ego, superego)
– Lesson: consciousness is irrelevant to
behaviour
5
13/11/2014
Radical Behaviourism as a Philosophy
Critique of Freud’s theory contin.
– Example:
• Student: neurotic subservience to teachers
• Father: punitive perfectionist
• Freud: child incorporated stern father image
into superego
• Skinner: direct link between punishment by
father and student’s current behaviour
Radical Behaviourism as a Philosophy
Current behaviour based on consequences of past
behaviour
• Addition of a mental link only complicates
matters; requires explanation itself
• Considered all mental entities unnecessary:
– Superego
– Apperception
– Habit strength
– Cognitive maps
6
13/11/2014
Radical Behaviourism as a Philosophy
Empiricist
– Influenced by radical empiricism of Francis
Bacon and Ernst Mach
• Truth found in observations themselves;
not in our interpretations
• e.g. “reflex” just a convenient term that
describes a regular correlation between
stimulus and response; not an entity
inside an animal
The Experimental Analysis of
Behaviour
Inspired by the success of Pavlov’s work with
conditioned reflexes
• Goal of psychology:
– To analyse behaviour by identifying specific
determinants of behaviour and to
– Establish the exact nature of the
relationship between antecedent and
behaviour
• Best way to do this: experiment - allows for
systematic control of all factors affecting
behaviour
7
13/11/2014
The Contingencies of Reinforcement
A behaviour is explained when all the influences of that
behaviour have been identified and can be controlled
– Antecedent influences are called independent
variables
– Behaviour that is a function of these antecedents
are called dependent variables
– The organism is then thought of as a locus of
variables: a place where independent variables act
together to produce a behaviour
• There are no intervening mental processes between
independent and dependent variables
The Contingencies of Reinforcement
Skinner assumed that physiology would
eventually be able to outline the physical
mechanisms that control behaviour
– However this is completely separate from
analysis of behaviour in terms of functional
relationships among variables
– The functions would still be relevant, even
after the mechanisms are understood
8
13/11/2014
The Contingencies of Reinforcement
Like Watson, Skinner wanted not only to describe
and predict behaviour, he also wanted to control it
– Control was the ultimate test
– Prediction alone not enough
• Correlation between two variables may
actually be the result of a third variable
• E.g. high correlation between children’s toe
size and weight but toe size does not cause
weight, they are both the result of growth
The Contingencies of Reinforcement
A behaviour is explained when it can be both
predicted and influenced by the manipulation of
independent variables
• Two kinds of learned behaviour:
– Respondent
– Operant
9
13/11/2014
The Contingencies of Reinforcement
Respondent behaviour or learning (as studied
by Pavlov)
• Called reflex behaviour
• E.g. salivation
• A respondent is a behaviour elicited by a
definite stimulus (can be either
conditioned or unconditioned)
• “Involuntary” behaviour
The Contingencies of Reinforcement
Operant behaviour or learning
• Cannot be elicited but sometimes simply
happens
• The probably of an operant reoccurring
can be increased if it is followed by a
reinforcer
–After it is reinforced it is more likely to
occur again in similar circumstances
• “Voluntary” behaviour
10
13/11/2014
The Contingencies of Reinforcement
Thorndikes’s puzzle boxes were an operant
learning situation
– Cat emits a variety of behaviours
– Pressing a lever results in escape
– This is reinforcing
– Placed back in box
– Probability of correct response now higher
– Operant response has been strengthened
The Contingencies of Reinforcement
Contingencies of reinforcement are collectively
defined by three things
– Setting (puzzle box)
– Reinforced response (lever pressing)
– Reinforcer (escape)
– The experimental analysis of behaviour: the
systematic description of contingencies of
reinforcement
11
13/11/2014
The Contingencies of Reinforcement
Analogy to Darwin’s theory of Evolution:
– Experimental analysis of behaviour part of
biology
– Explains behaviour as the product of its
environment
– Process similar to natural selection that
produces species
Radical Behaviourism as a Philosophy
Analogy to Darwin contin.
Darwin: species constantly produce random
various traits
– nature selects those that aid survival
Skinner: organisms constantly produce various
behaviour
– some lead to favourable consequences, are
reinforced, strengthened, and are learned
– others that do not lead to favourable
consequences are not reinforced, not
12
13/11/2014
The Contingencies of Reinforcement
• No room for mind
• All behaviour, learned and unlearned, a result
of reinforcement history, or genes
• Never a product of intention or will
The Contingencies of Reinforcement
Skinner differed from other behaviourists, including Watson, in 3
important ways:
1) Skinner not an S-R psychologist (#1)
– Watson: applied classical conditioning to all behaviour
– Skinner: operant responses are never elicited
• e.g. rat trained to press lever in Skinner box
• lever press only reinforced when light is on
• light NOT a conditioned stimulus; does NOT elicit response
• Light is a discriminative stimulus: enables animal to
discriminate a reinforcing from a nonreinforcing situation
13
13/11/2014
The Contingencies of Reinforcement
2) Skinner not an S-R psychologist (#2)
• Animals can be affected by “controlling variables” –
they do not need to be considered stimuli
– E.g. motivation
– Hull recognized drive-stimuli such as hunger
– Food deprivation  unpleasant feeling of
hunger  animal seeks to reduce these by
seeking food
– Skinner: no need for drive-stimuli
– Food deprivation (measurable variable) 
seeking food (observable behaviour)
The Contingencies of Reinforcement
3) Definition of the operant
– Behaviour: movement in space, but not
defined as simple movements
– Operant is a class of responses, not a single
response
14
13/11/2014
The Contingencies of Reinforcement
E.g. cat in puzzle box may press the lever a number of different
ways on different trials – with its paw, head, etc.
– Each is a different response (form is different)
– But all members of the same operant since it is controlled
by the same contingencies of reinforcement
– On the other hand, two identical physical movements can
be different operants if they are controlled by different
contingencies
• E.g. raising your hand to tell the truth in court vs.
waving to your friend
• The setting and contingency of reinforcement are
different
The Contingencies of Reinforcement
Especially important in explaining verbal
behaviour
– E.g. “sock” has two meanings:
• Something that goes on your foot
• A punch
– The meaning of a word is a contingency of
reinforcement
15
13/11/2014
Operant Methodology
Outlined an innovative and radical methodology
1) His experimental situation (operant
conditioning chamber or Skinner box) allowed
for fluid behaviour rather than separate
arbitrary trials
– Behaviour may occur at any time
– Observed as it changes over time, not when
it changes abruptly at the end of each trial
Skinner Box
16
13/11/2014
Skinner Box
Operant Methodology
2) Experimenter exerts maximum control over
environment
– Can manipulate or hold constant independent
variables
– Observe the effect on behaviour
3) Simple and artificial response
– Rat presses lever
– Pigeon pecks key
– Responses unambiguous, easily observed, and
counted
17
13/11/2014
Operant Methodology
Established rate of responding as basic data
– Easily quantified
– Measure of response probability
– Varies with changes in the independent
variable
Interpreting Human Behavior
• Skinner on language (1950s)
– Verbal Behavior (1957)
– Experimental analysis of behavior in
animals are free of species restrictions, its
methods can be extended to humans
– Applicability of radical behaviorist analysis
to language
18
13/11/2014
Interpreting Human Behavior
• Skinner on language (continued)
– Language as behavior whose reinforcement
is mediated by others
– Tact: a verbal operant response under the
stimulus control of the physical
environment, and the correct use of which
is reinforced by the verbal community
Interpreting Human Behavior
• Radical analysis of tacting
– Reduced reference or naming to a
functional relationship among a response,
its discriminative stimuli, and its reinforcer
– Skinner’s treatment of human
consciousness: notion of private stimuli
– Hull and Tolman were wrong to exclude
private events from behaviorism
19
13/11/2014
Interpreting Human Behavior
• Skinner’s treatment of human consciousness
– Internal stimuli can control behavior
– Trained by the verbal community to observe
our private stimuli
– Self-reporting verbal behaviors are
reinforced because they have survival value
– Human consciousness is a product of the
reinforcing practices of a verbal community
Interpreting Human Behavior
• Skinner’s treatment of human consciousness
– human self-consciousness is not an innate
possession of humans, but a social
construction of human socialization
– Explain purposive verbal behaviors without
reference to intension or purpose
– Thought is behavior under the control of
the contingencies of reinforcement
20
13/11/2014
Interpreting Human Behavior
• The scientific construction of culture
– Project OrCon (organic control)
– Complete control of the pigeon’s behavior
– pecking operated missile
Interpreting Human Behavior
• The scientific construction of culture
– Walden II (1948)
– Plausibility of through control of any
organism’s behavior
– Skinnerian value: desire to scientifically
control human lives in the interest of the
survival of society (humans can be
controlled to be happy and productive)
21
13/11/2014
Behaviorism and the Human Mind:
Informal behaviorism
• Neo-hullian informal behaviorism (After
WWII)
– Cognitive processes received increasing
attention
– Humans possess “symbolic processes”
Behaviorism and the Human Mind:
Informal behaviorism
• Mediation theory
– Building on Hull’s fractional anticipatory
goal response
• S-(r-s)-R
– Pure stimulus act
• Without acting on the environment,
behaviors can occur internally to provide
stimulus support for another behavior
22
13/11/2014
Informal behaviorism
• Cognitive processes admitted into behavior
theory without inventing human mental
processes
– Mediation theory: Apply the conceptual
machinery of single-stage S-R process
– Behavior still explained by S-R behavior
chains, with some of them taking place
invisibly within the organism
Informal behaviorism
• Incorporating human cognitive processes
within the S-R framework
– Neal Miller (1909-2002)
– Social learning theory: applied mediation
theory and loosened S-R theory to
encompass human language, culture, and
psychotherapy
23
13/11/2014
Informal behaviorism
• Mediational behaviorism – the major theoretical
position in the 1950s
– Gave up Watsonian & Hullian muscletwitchism
– Internalizing S-R language (in the brain)
– Desire to preserve theoretical exactness &
avoid “junkshop psychology”
– link inferential behavioralism of 1930s & 1940s
to the cognitive psychology of 1980s
Philosophical Behaviorism
24
13/11/2014
Philosophical Behaviorism
• Came out of problems in animal psychology and in revolt
against introspective mentalism
• Ordinary people believe they possess mental processes
and consciousness, which goes against behaviorism
– If the mind and consciousness do not exist then why is
ordinary language full of words and descriptions
related to these concepts?
• Philosophical behaviorism addressed the problem of
reinterpreting common sense mentalistic psychology into
acceptable “scientific” behavioristic terms
Logical Behaviorism
• Another name for philosophical behaviorism
• A semantic theory about what mental terms mean
• Attributing a mental state to an organism is equal to
saying that the organism is disposed to behave in a
certain way
 When we attribute a mental state to a person, we are
not describing an inner mental state, but rather we are
just describing their actual or likely behavior in a
situation
• According to logical positivists, it would be possible
to eliminate mental states completely from
psychology and replace them with concepts referring
to behavior
25
13/11/2014
Logical Behaviorism
• Logical behaviorism is implausible, because
mental statements cannot always be directly
translated into behavioral dispositions (e.g. thin
ice)
• Difficulties relevant to experimental psychology
because its doctrines are the application of
operationalism to psychological terms
• Cannot always operationally define concepts
• Logical behaviorism is a false and inaccurate
theory
The “Ghost in the Machine”
• Descartes defined two worlds: the material
world, including the body, and the mental and
internal world
• Gilbert Ryle, an English philosopher, attacked
Descartes for believing that the mind was
distinct from the body
• Category mistake: because something has a
name, it must apply to something separate
from its parts (E.g. Oxford University)
26
13/11/2014
The “Ghost in the Machine”
• Cartesian dualism is a category mistake, since
behaviors are described using mental predicates
(intelligent, hopeful, sincere, etc.), we assume
that there must be a mental thing behind the
behaviors making them that way
• Behaviors themselves have these traits, and no
“inner ghost” is needed
• Believing there is a “ghost” behind mental
processes accomplishes nothing, we would then
have to explain why it works the way it does
(Ghost in the ghost in the ghost…)
The “Ghost in the Machine”
• More to mental predicates than simply
describing behavior
• They go beyond simple description, but not
behind it, no inner ghost controlling it
• Ryle’s analysis of mind similar to behaviorism,
but quite distinct from philosophical
behaviorism and psychological behaviorism
27
13/11/2014
Mind as a Social Construct
• Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein argued
that Cartesians led people to believe
that there are mental objects (e.g.
sensations) and mental processes (e.g.
memory), but in fact there are neither
Mental Objects
• Mental object (pain): Does not describe behavior
or an inner object, and statements about pain are
not descriptions of anything, they are expressions
• Problems with thinking of pain as an object:
 Believing that 1st and 3rd person uses of the term are
the same
 Objects must be known and we must be able to say
true things about them, but we must also be able to
doubt the knowledge about them
 How pains are located
28
13/11/2014
Mental Processes
• Mental process (remembering): There is no essential
mental process of remembering, because there are
many different ways you can come to the conclusion
of remembering the same thing
 We can perform many different behaviors to reach the
same conclusion (e.g. remembering where we left our
keys)
 No common behavior or conscious experience, so there
is no essential behavioral, mental or physiological
process of remembering
 We group events together because of their ‘family
resemblance’, there is no single defining feature but all
events share various similar traits, not processes but
human abilities
Mind as a Social Construct
• Psychology’s conceptual confusion is to think
there are mental objects and mental processes
when there are not, and then to seek fictitious
descriptions of the fictitious objects and
processes
• Wittgenstein argued that explanations have to
stop somewhere
 Psychologists think concepts such as memory,
wishing and thinking require explanations, but Ryle
argues they do not, they are simply just things we
can do without having some mental or physiological
“inside story”
29
13/11/2014
Forms of Life
• Wittgenstein believed we cannot scientifically
explain behavior, but we can understand it
• To understand behavior, we must take into
consideration human “forms of life”, which are
based on context and prior experience
• Someone who is not knowledgeable in an area
(art) may see no meaning in something (a
painting) because they do not participate in
that form of life
– As simply paint on canvas, a painting has no
meaning, takes on meaning only in the eye of the
interpretive viewer
Forms of Life
• Human action is only meaningful within the
setting of a form of life
• Psychology cannot be a science because there are
no historically permanent and cross-culturally
universal principles for understanding human
thought and behavior
• Wittgenstein said psychology should accept the
modest goal of explicating forms of life and
explaining particular human actions within their
historically given forms of life
30
13/11/2014
Conclusion
• Behaviorism predominated psychology until
the 1960’s
• It basically established psychology as a
science, and defined it as the study of
behavior
• This approach dominated for some time, but it
eventually gave way to a less narrow and rigid
approach that included internal processes
31